Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar Ray @ Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Ray, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a 2015 FIR alleging his involvement in a bomb attack on a village mukhiya's house, offences under Sections 413 and 414 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner instructed two arrested individuals to throw the bomb, while the petitioner claimed he had no knowledge of the case and was not absconding despite having seven prior criminal convictions and a recent incarceration. The State argued that the petitioner had multiple other cases filed between 2017 and 2019, indicating a pattern of criminal activity. The court examined the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the timing of the application, concluding that the petitioner had approached the court belatedly and could not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected, with the court directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and file a regular bail application. The court further directed that any subsequent bail application be decided promptly, preferably on the same day.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given his prior criminal record and the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the petitioner can be said to be absconding or evading the investigation.
- Whether the pending cases and the timing of the application preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 413, 414
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 413
- IPC 414
- CrPC 438
- criminal antecedents
- bail application
- absconding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38779 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2015 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Ray @ Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh Ray S/o Ramekbal Ray @
Ramekbal Rai Resident of village Bhimalpur, P.S - Mehsi ,District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP
representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 138 of 2015 registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 413 of 414 of the Indian
Penal Code, lodged on 13.08.2015 by the informant Rajesh
Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on 13.08.2015, on secret information that accused persons
have gathered at the house of the petitioner, the place was raided
though some managed to escape, two persons were arrested.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38779 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
They were Gulshan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar. On search, a
motorcycle was recovered and later the arrested person
disclosed that on the instruction of this petitioner they had
thrown bomb on the house of Madan Shah who was Mukhiya.
This led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as
would reflect from paragraph no.3, he has seven criminal
antecedents which led to his long incarceration from 03.01.2020
to 20.09.2024 and as such, it cannot be said that he was
absconding. Further, the Police only to implicate has lodged the
present case against him and he had no knowledge about this
case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh on the
other hand opposed the prayer submitting that the case was
lodged on 13.08.2015 and as per his own, the petitioner went
into custody in the year 2020, in between as would reflect from
the paragraph no.3, he has four more cases after the lodging of
the present case inasmuch as between 2017 to 2019 four cases
were lodged against him.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
that the petitioner has belatedly knocked the doors of the Court,
this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38779 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
bail.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application
stands rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders within a
period of four weeks, files bail application, the court concerned
shall consider the matter and dispose it of preferably on the
same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.